The decision graph used in our “quasi-systematic” annotation is
depicted in Figure REF . We call our procedure
“quasi-systematic” because, while its tasks (depicted in rectangles) are
readily automated, its decision points are not as they require subjective
human judgments. Decision points D1 and D2 decide whether the turn is a CR or
not; new tasks and digressions from the current task answer “no” to both
decision points and just stack their evidence of proposal in T3. If the turn is
a CR of a proposal X, T4 unstacks all proposals over X as a result of applying
the downward evidence property of conversations (discussed in
the paper). Intuitively, the turn is taken as an implicit uptake
in level 4 of all the proposals over proposal X (which must be completed
before X can be completed).This intuition is in line with
Geurts's preliminary analysis of non-declaratives: if the speaker
did not negotiate the proposals over X, then we can assume that he did not have
problems up-taking them [1]}.
Decision points D3 to D6 decide whether the CRs
belong to [2]}'s levels 1 to 4 respectively,
with the help of [3]}. If a turn can be preceded by positive evidence in level 4 but it still is negative evidence of some proposal made earlier in the dialogue we annotate the CR as other. An example of this in dialogue 2 in the SCARE dataset THERE'S ISN'T REALLY SHORT FOR THERE ARE, IS IT? BUT PEOPLE DO IT ANYWAY where the DF follower is correcting the DG who said THERE'S THREE DOORS earlier. The negative evidence is not related to the modalities relevant for the task at hand but to the language itself.
<FIGURE>